Marriage of Makooi

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 24CA1138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA1138 Marriage of Makooi 02-26-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1138 Douglas County District Court No. 21DR132 Honorable Benjamin Todd Figa, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Nazanin Assadi,

Appellee,

and

Newsha Makooi,

Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division VI Opinion by JUDGE WELLING Kuhn and Schutz, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced February 26, 2026

Visioli Legal, Steven M. Visioli, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee

Johnson Law Group, LLC, Shana D. Velez, Commerce City, Colorado, for Appellant ¶1 In this post-dissolution of marriage case involving Newsha

Makooi (husband) and Nazanin Assadi (wife), husband appeals the

district court’s ruling on his motions to compel discovery related to

his request for modification of maintenance. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

¶2 The parties’ marriage ended in 2021. After affirming an

arbitrator’s maintenance award, the court ordered husband to pay

wife spousal maintenance of $6,000 per month, terminating only

upon her remarriage or death.

¶3 In July 2023, husband moved to modify maintenance, alleging

that wife’s financial circumstances had improved based on new full-

time employment and as evidenced by her purchase of a BMW

vehicle (modification motion).

¶4 In September, husband filed a motion to compel the

production of certain documents from third parties. In it, he

explained that wife had objected to the subpoenas he had served on

her purported employer, two of her banks, and BMW Downton

Denver (as well as its financial services providers).

¶5 In December, husband filed another motion to compel.

According to him, wife’s discovery responses were deficient. He

1 sought an order requiring her to provide all required financial

disclosures under C.R.C.P. 16.2 and submit complete responses to

his propounded discovery. He also requested that, if she failed to

comply, the court should draw adverse inferences about her

financial circumstances and income.

¶6 Two days prior to the scheduled hearing on the motion to

modify, the parties filed a Joint Trial Management Certificate

(JTMC). In the JTMC, the parties indicated that husband’s two

motions to compel were among the issues that the court should

address before the hearing.

¶7 On January 25, 2024, the parties appeared for a hearing on

the modification motion. At the outset of the hearing, the court

addressed husband’s two pending motions to compel. It ultimately

found that wife hadn’t complied with her disclosure and discovery

obligations, specifically regarding a heavily redacted bank statement

and a private car lease. Based on husband’s representation that he

wished to proceed with the hearing despite the discovery violations,

the court ordered wife to produce those documents within seven

days and during the hearing warned her of possible sanctions

should she fail to comply, including adverse inferences or evidence

2 preclusion. The court, however, required husband to initiate any

request for sanctions during the hearing. He never did.

¶8 The following day, on January 26, 2024, the court made an

oral ruling on the record denying husband’s motion to modify. On

July 7, 2024, following the filing of husband’s initial notice of

appeal to this court, the district court entered a written order

adopting the transcript from the January 26, 2024 ruling as the

court’s written ruling denying the motion to modify maintenance. A

motions division of this court ordered husband to file the July 7,

2024 written order, which he did along with an amended notice of

appeal, which the motion division accepted.

II. Motions to Compel

¶9 For several reasons, husband contends that the district court

erred by not actively managing and facilitating disclosure issues in

accordance with C.R.C.P. 16.2(b), which, he contends, allowed wife

to hide critical financial information and undermined his ability to

present his case effectively. We address each contention in turn.

3 A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

¶ 10 C.R.C.P. 16.2 governs discovery and disclosures in domestic

relations cases. In re Marriage of Gromicko, 2017 CO 1, ¶ 27. The

purpose of C.R.C.P. 16.2 is

to provide a uniform procedure for resolution of all issues in domestic relations cases that reduces the negative impact of adversarial litigation wherever possible. To that end, this Rule contemplates management and facilitation of the case by the court, with the disclosure requirements, discovery and hearings tailored to the needs of the case.

C.R.C.P. 16.2(a). The court must “provide active case management

from filing to resolution or hearing on all pending issues.” C.R.C.P.

16.2(b).

¶ 11 The applicable standard of review for discovery rulings is

abuse of discretion, not de novo, as husband suggests. Gromicko,

¶ 18; see also In re Marriage of de Koning, 2016 CO 2, ¶ 25 (“While

the [district] court retains discretion to grant discovery and tailor it

to the particular needs of the case, Rule 16.2 indicates a preference

for limiting discovery in time and in scope in order to further the

efficient resolution of domestic relations cases.” (citations omitted)).

A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly

4 arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair or is based on a misapplication of

the law. Gromicko, ¶ 18.

B. Discussion

1. Preservation

¶ 12 To begin, we must address preservation. On appeal, husband

insists that the district court erred by failing to (1) rule on his

motions to compel before the January 25, 2024 hearing resulting in

a violation of C.R.C.P. 16.2 and his due process rights; (2) enforce

compliance with wife’s financial disclosure and discovery

obligations under C.R.C.P. 16.2 and Form 35.1, including

documents related to her income, taxes, residence, and retirement

account; and (3) impose discovery sanctions. But, as discussed

below, because those issues are waived — or at least

unpreserved — we decline to address them.

¶ 13 To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a

timely objection on the record. Rinker v. Colina-Lee, 2019 COA 45,

¶ 25. Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes a

known right or privilege. Avicanna Inc. v. Mewhinney, 2019 COA

129, ¶ 25. A party’s failure to make a timely objection with regard

to an issue raised on appeal is deemed a waiver and forecloses

5 appellate review of that issue. In re Estate of Musso, 932 P.2d 853,

857 (Colo. App. 1997); see also Gebert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

2023 COA 107, ¶ 25 (If an issue was “never presented to,

considered by, or ruled upon by a district court,” it “may not be

raised for the first time on appeal.”).

¶ 14 At the start of the hearing on the modification motion, the

district court asked husband what documents he was missing from

wife “to be ready for the hearing.” He answered, “It’s not that I don’t

have documents to be ready to proceed, Your Honor. I am fully

ready to proceed.” (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding this

representation, husband asked the court to order wife to provide an

unredacted bank statement, her private car lease, and supporting

documentation associated with her tax return. The court found

that wife had violated C.R.C.P. 16.2 and ordered her to provide the

bank statement and car lease within seven days of the hearing. The

court postponed its decision on sanctioning her with adverse

inferences or evidence preclusion unless and until husband

initiated such a request during the hearing. As previously noted,

husband never did.

6 ¶ 15 Husband didn’t raise, nor did the district court rule on, his

claim that the court should have resolved his motions to compel

prior to the January 25, 2024, hearing. And the record shows that

he acquiesced to the court’s determination that wife’s

noncompliance was limited to the unredacted bank statement and

private car lease, and he didn’t seek discovery rulings on her

income, taxes, residence, and retirement account. Moreover,

throughout the hearing, husband never once asked the court to

impose any discovery sanctions. These acts and omissions on the

part of counsel constitute a failure to preserve (if not a waiver) of

the issues husband advances on appeal.

¶ 16 Because husband’s arguments were waived — or at least not

preserved — we won’t consider them on appeal. See, e.g., Gebert,

¶ 25; In re Marriage of Crouch, 2021 COA 3, ¶ 13 (“Because father

failed to argue this issue in the district court . . . he cannot argue it

for the first time on appeal.”).

¶ 17 Still, he asserts, in his reply brief, that he preserved discovery

issues in a post-trial motion under C.R.C.P. 59 and 60, which the

district court never ruled on and was deemed denied pursuant to

C.R.C.P. 59(j). But “[a]rguments made . . . for the first time in a

7 post-trial motion are too late and, consequently, are deemed waived

for purposes of appeal.” Briargate at Seventeenth Ave. Owners

Ass’n v. Nelson, 2021 COA 78M, ¶ 66; see also People v. Schaufele,

2014 CO 43, ¶ 49 (Boatright, J., concurring in the judgment)

(“Motions for reconsideration are designed to correct erroneous

court rulings; they are not designed to allow parties to present new

legal arguments for the first time and then appeal their

denial . . . .”).

2. Failure to Continue the Hearing

¶ 18 Next, husband contends that the district court’s refusal to

continue the hearing deprived him of the opportunity to obtain

necessary information and fully argue his modification motion.

Again, we conclude that he waived this contention, so we won’t

review it on appeal.

¶ 19 At the outset of the hearing, husband clearly and affirmatively

told the district court that he had sufficient documentation and was

prepared to go forward with the hearing. And although he informed

the court of outstanding documents, which the court ordered to be

produced within seven days of the hearing, at no point did he ask

for a continuance. Because he told the court that he wanted to

8 proceed with the hearing, he can’t now assert that the court erred

by not continuing it sua sponte. See People v. O’Neill, 803 P.2d

164, 169 (Colo. 1990) (a party “cannot complain on appeal [about]

the very procedure he agreed to through his counsel”); cf. Roberts v.

Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 144 P.3d 546, 549-50 (Colo. 2006) (“[A]

party may . . . be estopped from asserting on appeal a position

contrary to one he took at trial or in which he later acquiesced.”).

3. New Information

¶ 20 Last, to the extent that husband relies on new financial

information obtained after the hearing to bolster the arguments he

advances on appeal, we won’t consider it. See Boulder Plaza

Residential, LLC v. Summit Flooring, LLC, 198 P.3d 1217, 1222

(Colo. App. 2008) (an appellate court won’t consider evidence that

wasn’t admitted at the hearing or submitted to the district court

before ruling). Specifically, husband contends that various

documents he received and reviewed after the hearing purportedly

confirm that certain statements made by wife and her counsel

before and during the hearing on the motion to modify weren’t true.

But this information and argument was never presented to the

district court, so we won’t consider it on appeal. See In re Marriage

9 of Drexler, 2013 COA 43, ¶ 24 (declining to consider exhibit

appended to a party’s brief that wasn’t part of the certified record).

III. Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs

¶ 21 Wife asks for her appellate attorney fees, asserting that

husband’s appeal was frivolous. Although husband hasn’t

prevailed, we deny wife’s request. See In re Estate of Shimizu, 2016

COA 163, ¶ 34 (“[A]n award of fees on appeal is appropriate only in

clear and unequivocal cases where no rational argument is

presented.”).

¶ 22 Wife is, however, entitled to costs on appeal, see C.A.R. 39(a),

and may seek those costs in the district court, see C.A.R. 39(c).

IV. Disposition

¶ 23 The order is affirmed.

JUDGE KUHN and JUDGE SCHUTZ concur.